I am very disappointed in your 12/31/99 article titled "Dog's death
highlights culture clash." Your premise that the "shooting illustrates
pressures greeting sprawling suburbia" makes a good headline, but is
inaccurate. Your article suggests that this is a new housing tract that is
clashing with a rancher who has been on his land for 35 years. The truth is,
most of the homes within a hundred yards of the foothills have been here for
over 33 years (including my home). Richard Vargas had been leasing the
Water District land for only TWO years prior to the housing developments.

The area being leased is a narrow strip of land surrounded on all sides by
homes. He is leasing land that is essentially an island in the middle of a
city, and I find it appalling that he is permitted to fire a high-powered
rifle in this area.

I believe this rancher is a sick individual with license to kill our pets
and potentially harm our loved ones by using a high-powered rifle to protect
his "livelihood." He could have used a pellet gun, he could have fired a
warning shot, he could have used less extreme measures... but he shot to
kill. Richard Vargas is acting out his "cowboy fantasies" in the year 2000
and the law, unfortunately, supports him instead of the thousands of tax
paying citizens who live within firing range.

It's time for our government to pass laws that protect the rights of the
majority instead of a few individuals on the fringes of society. Just as
plantation owners fought against the abolition of slavery citing the
"protection of livelihood" argument, Richard Vargas must find a new way of
doing business in the 21st century.